Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Say America's pediatricians through the American Academy of Pediatrics: "Fluoride plays a very important role in the prevention of dental caries."

"Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries, with the lifetime cost per person equaling less than the cost of 1 dental restoration. In short, fluoridated water is the cheapest and most effective way to deliver anticaries benefits to communities."

America's Internal Medicine specialists whose main mission is the medical care for older people agree. The American Academy of Family Physicians did their own systematic review before deciding to advocate for fluoridation.

Physicians are not stupid lemmings. They only wish the best for their patients. If the views in this "discussion" were the truth the physician's support of fluoridation would evaporate.

These arguments well illustrates that fluoridation opponents actually believe that somehow state and federal health agencies, aided by these many expert scientific communities are lying and helping to poison over 2000 million Americans.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Appeal and Supreme Courts across the US have ruled that fluoridation is not mass medication, forced or otherwise. Three of the reasons are:1. No one is forced to consume tap water.2. Fluoride ions are naturally present in tap water. Fluoridation is the adjustment of a naturally occurring mineral.3. Fluoride is an approved water additive regulated in the same manner as all the some 45 others.4. There is no constitutionally guaranteed individual right to choose the chemical composition of tap water.5. Water providers have a right and obligation to determine the composition of their product within the standards defined by law.

Here are some representative quotes from the Oregon Supreme Court.BAER v. CITY OF BEND

"the fluoridation measure passes the test of reasonableness."

(fluoridation is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

"But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good."

"Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy."

"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Bill, as a point of clarification, while you may claim to be a “former fluoride promoter” at some point in the past, the fact is that you are the former Director of the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN.

Yes, there were two decisions, by the NZ Supreme Court. I have, of course, seen both, and understand, as apparently you do not, that both rulings rejected the arguments of the antifluoridationists, and upheld the lower rulings that:

1. The Tanaki Council did, indeed, have the authority to fluoridate its water system,

2. That the fluoridation substances are not medicine under the Medicine Act.

What you have posted here are out-of-context opinions of justices, not their ruling. You have also conveniently omitted the opinion of the other justice which differred from them. However, none of them “confirm” anythng, and are simply opinions expressed to explain their reasoning in reaching a final ruling against the antifluoridationists. The following is the summary in complete and proper context:

“After a series of cases that have been running since 2014, the Supreme Court has released two decisions dismissing New Health New Zealand Inc's various challenges to drinking-water fluoridation.

The Court dealt with the claims in two separate judgments. In the first judgment the Court addressed New Health's challenge to South Taranaki District Council's decision to fluoridate drinking-water supplies in Patea and Waverley. In particular, the Court addressed New Health's claims:

That the Council did not have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies

That mass water fluoridation breached the right to refuse medical treatment, as set out in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA).

Although their reasoning sometimes differed, all of the Justices except Elias CJ agreed that the Council did have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies.

On the BORA point, the analysis was complex. William Young J agreed with the Court of Appeal's finding that water fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purpose of section 11. In contrast, the other Justices found that drinking-water fluoridation is a medical treatment. However, O'Regan and France JJ concluded that, despite engaging section 11: "the provisions authorising the fluoridation of drinking water limit the s 11 right only to an extent that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purposes of s 5 of [the BORA]". Glazebrook J also agreed section 11 was engaged, but in contrast, noted that satisfaction of section 5 would depend on local conditions and declined to analyse the point further. Overall, while the Justices were divided in their reasoning, the majority agreed that the appeal must be dismissed. Elias CJ differed, giving a minority judgment which concluded that "an interpretation of the legislation which recognises an implied power to add fluoride to water is inconsistent with s 11 of the [BORA]".

In the second judgment, the Court addressed New Health's challenge to the validity of the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2015, which had declared that fluoridating agents for use in water supply were not medicines for the purposes of the Medicines Act. The Court was united in dismissing this appeal, finding, in essence, that because the Regulations were made for a lawful purpose (clarity) and were prospective in nature, they were valid. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal that New Health's other challenges to the Medicines Act were moot, and the appeal was dismissed.”

Now, with that settled, Bill, do you care to comment on the recently released results of the National Toxicology Program study which you, yourself, instigated, and which your FAN promoted and pledged to closely monitor? It’s probably no coincidence that FAN has chosen to remain deafeningly silent on these results, given that they reject, in no uncertain terms, the claims of FAN.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

When a person lacks evidence to support a theory, they attack the person and people rather than the issues.

Many aspects of dentistry and public health are in the dustbin of history. Fluoridation will soon be considered on of public health's greatest blunders.

When fluoridation first started, public health authorities (Burk et al) assured the public only about 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis, a biomarker of too much fluoride.

Dental fluorosis increased at the turn of the century to 41% of adolescents with dental fluorosis. The latest NHANES 2011-2012 dental fluorosis CDC survay released, shows 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate and severe. Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

One of the unknowns is, "where is the excess fluoride coming from?" Water fluoridation and toothpaste do not seem to have increased enough to cause such high rates of dental fluorosis. Are there synergistic chemicals, other fluoride products or what? Indeed, HHS recommended reducing the concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, but HHS suggests that will represent about a 14% decrease in exposure. Still too much fluoride ingestion.

Fluoride does not magically go just to the teeth. Most cells and tissues and organ systems appear to be affected.

First consider dosage. What fluoride concentration is desireable in the tooth? How much fluoride does it take to get that concentration?

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

A couple NZ court cases. The Human Rights case is most interesting and you may have only seen one case. The court confirmed that adding fluoride to water is compulsory medical treatment without the option to refuse. May I quote:

"[99] Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water. So the treatment is compulsory. While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner. [100] We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so. Subject to s 5, therefore, s 11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged."

In the USA, the FDA has agreed before Congress fluoride is a drug. However, they sidestep the issue by claiming the EPA regulates the water. EPA kicks the jurisdiction back to the FDA saying they are prevented from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans.

The court cases have something for both sides and I'm sure neither side will call these court cases definitive.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

No, Karen. The New Zealand Supreme Court did not make any such ruling as you and your New Zealand antifluoridationist counterparts falsely claim. A court ruling is a final decision on specific claims brought before the court to be resolved. The decision dispenses the questions one way or the other, and is enforceable as law.

To what you and your New Zealand counterparts erroneously refer as “rulings” are nothing more than the personal opinions of judges on which they base their final consensus ruling, or decision. In the NZ case, antifluoridationists appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision which had gone against them. They based this appeal on 2 points of law. The final ruling by the Supreme Court was that their points did not have merit, that the lower court ruling was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

No court of last resort has ever ruled in favor of the antifluoridationist nonsense of “forced medication”.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

I do not consent to be forcibly medicated through the water supply with chemicals that are not there to treat the water, but the end consumer. Even if there were any benefit, which I am convinced there is none, who has given anyone the right to forcible feed chemicals down our throats? Also, science is overwhelmingly showing multiple harms due to bioaccumulation of Fluorine compounds in to bodily tissues. The fact that many dentists are supporting such practice is outrageous and surely these dentist are not there to monitor the daily dose. Such dentist have no credibility in my book and I do not consent to any artificially forcefed water fluoridation! What has happened to dental ethics? What kind of “free” nation would engage is such practice? Obviously not free!

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988 comment on 1978 decision)

I have to agree that the NZ Supreme Court rulling is more of the same - a mixed lot that doesn't make much of a difference. The New Zealand Supreme Court, without considering the latest evidence from multiple studies and analysis of US data, ruled that fluoridation chemicals were medicine and that fluoridation process is mass medication in violation of their Bill of Rights - but legal under other statutes that exempts them from regulation.

In the 20th century, there were several US court rulings that fluoridation was undoubtedly harmful, but legal under US law. US courts advised that fluoridation decisions rightfully should be left to regulatory agencies and legislators rather than the courts. Sadly, regulatory agencies and politicians have been captured or/and corrupted by the fluoridation lobby who deceives them with Tooth Fairy Tales of magic potions and insists on slavish obedience to dental dogma.

I suggest that if the evidence of harm and dental disagreement are too much for the courts and politicians to consider, then they at least should pay attention to international human rights statutes.

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

However, there is a pending August 2019 US lawsuit against the EPA in federal court under the TSCA regulations. That lawsuit should consider the most recent findings that prove both an increase in dental fluorosis and a decline in IQ on a dose-resposne trend line plus a correlation between dental fluorosis severity and learning disabilties. God help us all if the law of the land continues to be contorted to make it legal to poison people.

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Wow!!! I’ve seen a mountain load of misrepresentations by antifluoridationists, but this one by the New Zealand antifluoridationist group has got to go to the top of the list. The NZ Supreme Court did not make any of the rulings claimed by this New Zealand subsidiary of FAN, in its “press release”. The court simply rejected the appeal by another New Zealand antifluoridationist group, New Health, of lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists. While the Supreme Court provided summaries of its discussions and reasoning, the dismissal of the antifluoridationist claims was its only ruling. It most certainly did not rule that fluoridation is mass medication, compulsory, or any of the other egregious claims made in this ridiculous “press release”.

A summary of the NZ Supreme Court ruling against the antifluoridationists was prepared by the Justices. It may be viewed: